The Australian Government Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework

Transcription

1 The Auditor-General Report No ANAO Report The Australian Government Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework Australian National Audit Office

2 Commonwealth of Australia 2013 ISSN ISBN (Print) ISBN (On line) Except for the content in this document supplied by third parties, the Australian National Audit Office logo, the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and any material protected by a trade mark, this document is licensed by the Australian National Audit Office for use under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit You are free to copy and communicate the document in its current form for noncommercial purposes, as long as you attribute the document to the Australian National Audit Office and abide by the other licence terms. You may not alter or adapt the work in any way. Permission to use material for which the copyright is owned by a third party must be sought from the relevant copyright owner. As far as practicable, such material will be clearly labelled. For terms of use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, visit It s an Honour at Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Executive Director Corporate Management Branch Australian National Audit Office 19 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 Or via 2

3 Canberra ACT 23 April 2013 Dear Mr President Dear Madam Speaker The Australian National Audit Office has undertaken a pilot project to assess the status of the Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework as a basis for implementation of a future program of audits of entities key performance indicators, and to develop a suitable audit methodology. In accordance with the authority contained in section 25 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 and pursuant to Senate Standing Order 166 relating to the presentation of documents when the Senate is not sitting, I present the report of this pilot project to the Parliament. The report is titled The Australian Government Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework,. Following its presentation and receipt, the report will be placed on the Australian National Audit Office s Homepage Yours sincerely Ian McPhee Auditor-General The Honourable the President of the Senate The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 3

4 AUDITING FOR AUSTRALIA The Auditor-General is head of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The ANAO assists the Auditor-General to carry out his duties under the Auditor-General Act 1997 to undertake performance audits, financial statement audits and assurance reviews of Commonwealth public sector bodies and to provide independent reports and advice for the Parliament, the Australian Government and the community. The aim is to improve Commonwealth public sector administration and accountability. For further information contact: The Publications Manager Australian National Audit Office GPO Box 707 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone: (02) Fax: (02) ANAO audit reports and information about the ANAO are available at our internet address: KPI Audit Pilot Project Team Warren Cochrane Corinne Horton Jennifer Hutchinson Benjamin Siddans Louise Wallace Michael White 4

6 Tables Table 3.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the appropriateness of KPIs Table 3.2 Criteria for the evaluation of the completeness and accuracy of KPIs Table 3.3 Total number of outcomes, programs, deliverables and KPIs Table 3.4 Key principles for outcome statements Table 3.5 Guidance for program objectives Table 3.6 Guidance for program deliverables Table 3.7 Number of KPIs that met, met some elements of, or did not meet the characteristics for being relevant and reliable Figures Figure 1.1 Elements of the Outcomes and Programs framework Figure 1.2 Australian Government Performance Measurement and Reporting Cycle Figure 1.3 Trends from 2008/09 to 2010/11 in service performance grades for New Zealand entities that were audited in 2010/ Figure 2.1 CFAR Sharpening the Focus: A Framework for Improving Commonwealth Performance

8 Glossary Agency An organisation governed by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, which may be a Department of State, a Department of the Parliament or a prescribed agency. Annual reporting requirements Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act 1997 Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework Entity The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet s Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act Bodies (July 2012), approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit under subsection 63(2) and 70(2) of the Public Service Act The annual reporting requirements for Commonwealth Authorities and Companies (CAC) Act bodies are set out in that Act, and in the Finance Minister s Operations Orders (the Orders), which are referenced in the CAC Act. Regulates certain aspects of the corporate governance, financial management and reporting of Commonwealth authorities, which are in addition to the requirements of their enabling legislation; and the corporate governance and reporting of Commonwealth companies which are in addition to the requirements of the Corporations Act The framework under which Australian Government entities measure and report their performance. An organisation subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 or the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act

9 Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 Financial framework General Government Sector Key Performance Indicator(s) Specifies the financial management, accountability and audit obligations of agencies (including departments), particularly for managing public resources efficiently, effectively and ethically; and for maintaining proper accounts and records of the receipt and expenditure of public money. Underpins the appropriation, expenditure and use of money and resources within the Australian Government. The financial framework includes financial management legislation and policy, performance reporting guidance, and outcome and programs policy guidance for government entities. The entities that comprise the General Government Sector implement public policy through the provision of primarily non market services and the redistribution of income and wealth, with both activities supported mainly by compulsory levies on other sectors. Within the context of the current Outcomes and Programs framework, KPIs as stated in agencies PBSs, are established to provide information (either qualitative or quantitative) on the effectiveness of programs in achieving objectives in support of respective outcomes. Outcome Statement Outcome statements identify those intended results, impacts or consequences of actions by the Government on the Australian community, and contribute to meeting a Minister s reporting and accountability obligations to Parliament. 9

10 Portfolio Budget Statements Program Program effectiveness Program efficiency Program expenses Program support costs Budget related papers setting out budget measures and explanations of appropriations by outcome and program for each agency within a portfolio. Portfolio Budget Statements inform Senators and Members of Parliament and the public of the proposed allocation of resources to government outcomes. Activity or activities with a common focus that deliver benefits, services or transfer payments to individuals, industry and/or the community as a whole and which contribute to intended government outcomes. The extent to which program objectives are achieved. The extent to which the delivery of a government program has been maximised for a given level of resources. The total resources required to administer a program. The agency running costs allocated to a program and which are funded by the agency s departmental appropriation. 10

11 Auditor-General s Foreword The establishment and reporting of entity key performance indicators is a fundamental underpinning of the Australian Government s performance measurement and reporting framework. Key performance indicators are expected to inform entities and government about the performance of programs including their impact and cost effectiveness, and signal opportunities for improvements. Key performance indicators also provide the basis for entities and ministers informing the Parliament and the public of the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs. Reflecting on the work of my office and program evaluations undertaken by government, it is apparent that the systematic review of key performance indicators makes a positive contribution to the overall quality and credibility of the indicators themselves, and the reliance that can be placed on entities reporting against them by the Parliament and the public. All entities in the public sector with responsibilities for the delivery of government programs are expected to have in place key performance indicators which assist them to assess the impact of government programs, and whether programs might be better targeted to achieve more cost effective outcomes, given the demands on government today. Measures to periodically review the relevance and reliability of these indicators by entities, or more broadly within government, can only be beneficial. The recent review of the Auditor General Act 1997 by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit was timely given developments in public administration since the legislation was introduced. The Committee s Report 419 Inquiry into the Auditor General Act 1997 recommended the Auditor General s mandate be enhanced in several aspects including that the Auditor General be given explicit authority to undertake audits, at his or her discretion, of the appropriateness of entities key performance indicators and the reporting by entities against those indicators. Legislation to give effect to this mandate was passed by the Parliament in December Against the background of these amendments to the Auditor General Act 1997, my office has commenced the development of a suitable methodology to audit key performance indicators in a systematic way, in consultation with the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and the 11

12 Department of Health and Ageing. Prior to these recent legislative amendments, our audit approach has been to assess key performance indicators, as appropriate, in the context of individual performance audits of government programs or initiatives. The Auditor General Act 1997 now provides for a more focused approach to the audit of key performance indicators and the reporting of audit results to complement the ongoing contribution of our performance audit program. The intention is to test our approach to the systematic audit of these indicators by conducting a pilot project in and Expansion of the pilot project will be pursued in the light of experience and the provision of appropriate resources to my office. This report presents a summary of the work completed to date. We appreciate the involvement of the above mentioned entities in this pilot project and their contribution to informing the development of our audit processes, and also to informing their own initiatives to improve their performance measurement and reporting. Ian McPhee Auditor General 23 April

13 Summary 13

14 Summary Introduction 1. The Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development (OECD) has observed that: Measuring government performance has long been recognised as necessary for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector. Following the fiscal and economic crisis that began in 2008, however, accurate and timely data are needed more than ever to help governments make informed decisions about how and where to prioritise spending, reduce costs and promote innovation in the public administration Adequate performance information, particularly in relation to program effectiveness, allows entities to assess the impact of policy measures, adjust management approaches as required, and provide advice to government on the success, shortcomings and/or future directions of programs. This information also allows for informed decisions to be made on the allocation and use of program resources. In addition, performance information and reporting enables the Parliament and the public to consider a program s performance, in relation to both the impact of the program in achieving the policy objectives of the government and its cost effectiveness. 3. Performance reporting regimes have been in place in many OECD countries, including Australia, since the mid 1980s. Over time, there has been a trend to move away from a narrow focus on reporting on financial inputs, towards integrated models that are intended to provide a clearer picture of the results or outcomes that have been achieved from the expenditure of public money in other words, whether the outcomes or the impacts sought by government are being realised. 4. As the demands for better quality information about public sector performance increase, the need for the ongoing development and refinement of performance measurement and reporting frameworks has continued. The Australian Government s Outcomes and Outputs framework was introduced as part of the budget process, requiring entities to specify intended outcomes, and to measure and report on actual performance. While the 1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Government at a Glance,

15 Summary requirement for entities to clearly specify and report against outcomes, programs, deliverables, and key performance indicators has been maintained over the last decade, implementation within entities continues to require more focus and attention. The Outcomes and Outputs framework was replaced in by the Outcomes and Programs framework, with the new emphasis being on entities identifying and reporting against the programs that contribute to government outcomes over the Budget and forward years. The transition to a programs focus was intended to improve entity reporting and to clearly demonstrate entities achievement against pre defined program objectives. The Outcomes and Programs framework 5. The Australian Government Outcomes and Programs framework requires entities to firstly identify, and secondly report against, the programs that contribute to government outcomes over the Budget and forward years. A central aspect of this approach is the development of clearly specified outcomes, program objectives and appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs). 6. KPIs are expected to enable users to assess the achievements of the entity against the stated program objectives and collectively, their contribution to stated outcomes. 7. The Outcomes and Programs framework provides a focus on KPIs that measure the effectiveness of government programs. It is not expected that KPIs, within the context of the Outcomes and Programs framework, will measure inputs to a program (resources provided to administer the program), or the outputs (that is, quantity and quality indicators which are related to the deliverables 2 ). 3 Previous ANAO reports 8. The Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework has been the subject of various Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) performance audits. Audit reports have identified that the 2 3 Program deliverables (outputs) are the goods and services produced and delivered through the implementation of a program. Department of Finance and Deregulation, Guidance for the Preparation of the Portfolio Budget Statements March 2011 [Internet], Finance, p. 29. available from Guidance_for_the_Preparations_of_the_ _Portfolio_Budget_Statements.pdf [accessed 21 March 2013]. 15

16 development of performance indicators, including implementing effective systems and practices to capture, monitor and report against them, is an area that requires ongoing management attention, particularly with respect to the clarity of the specification of outcomes and program objectives and the measurement of entities impact. 9. In ANAO Audit Report No Development and Implementation of Key Performance Indicators to Support the Outcomes and Programs Framework (ANAO Audit Report No ), the ANAO provided an assessment of the development and implementation of KPIs by government entities. The findings of the audit indicated that many of the entities reviewed continued to find it challenging to develop and implement effectiveness KPIs which are intended to provide quantitative and measurable information, to allow for an informed and comprehensive assessment and reporting of achievements against stated objectives Other performance audits undertaken by the ANAO have also highlighted the need to strengthen program performance measurement. This includes establishing frameworks within entities to guide performance measurement activity, the importance of developing appropriate baselines and benchmarks early in program implementation 5, informing internal and external stakeholders on progress and outcomes, and strengthening program management and accountability. 6 The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into the Auditor-General Act In February 2009, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) resolved to review whether the provisions of the Auditor General Act 1997 remained adequate in the modern public sector environment 7, noting at the time that eight years had passed since the Committee s last such review. A key recommendation of this inquiry was ANAO Audit Report No , Development and Implementation of Key Performance Indicators to Support the Outcomes and Programs Framework, p.17. ANAO Audit Report No , Administration of the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program, p. 23. ANAO Audit Report No , Digital Education Revolution Program National Secondary Schools Computer Fund, p Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Report 419 Inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997, JCPAA, Canberra, December 2010, p. vi. 16

17 Summary directed at enhancing the Auditor General s role in reviewing the adequacy of agencies performance indicators In light of the report by the JCPAA, in December 2011, Parliament amended the Auditor General Act 1997 to provide the Auditor General with explicit authority to undertake audits of both the appropriateness of entities KPIs and the reporting by entities against those indicators. 13. The amendments to the legislation reflect Recommendation 3 of the JCPAA Report 419 Inquiry into the Auditor General Act 1997, which stated: That the Act be amended as necessary to enable the Auditor General to review an agency s compliance with its responsibilities for a sub set of performance indicators. Proposed performance indicators should be identified annually by the Auditor General and forwarded to the Parliament, via the JCPAA for comment, in a manner similar to the annual performance audit work program for the ANAO (p. 25). 14. To respond to Parliament s interest in KPIs, ANAO performance audits will continue to include coverage of the performance measurement arrangements that have been established for the area being reviewed. 9 In addition, as a consequence of the amended legislation, the ANAO has also invested in a pilot project, the subject of this report. KPI audit pilot project 15. The KPI audit pilot project (the Pilot) was designed to assess the status of the Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework as a basis for implementation of a future program of audits of entities KPIs, and to develop a suitable audit methodology. At the time of conducting the Pilot the ANAO recognised that the development of a full KPI assurance audit methodology and its implementation will take some time, and financial support. 16. To date the Pilot has been funded by the ANAO from its existing resource base. The Pilot project is expected to conclude in The future development and implementation of a broader ANAO KPI audit work program will require the ANAO to be appropriately resourced and in light of proposed enhancements to the Australian Government performance 8 9 ibid. ANAO, Audit Work Program July 2012 [Internet], ANAO, p. 14. available from Us/~/media/D24BDF AC6AA2B8FFA77686.pdf [accessed 10 April 2013]. 17

18 measurement and reporting framework, as presented by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review (CFAR) discussion paper (March 2012) and subsequent position paper (November 2012). 17. This report presents the ANAO s response so far to the legislative amendments of the Auditor General Act The Pilot included: assessing the Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework as a basis for implementation of a future program of audits of entities KPIs; reviewing the approaches taken by other relevant jurisdictions in the implementation of KPI audit methodologies; working with the responsible Australian Government central agencies; and testing a KPI audit approach and methodology within three entities. 18. Four entities participated collaboratively in the Pilot. The Department of Finance and Deregulation contributed in view of its role in being responsible for administering the Outcomes and Programs framework. The Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and the Department of Health and Ageing, contributed as entities with experience in applying the principles of the Outcomes and Programs framework. For these three entities, one outcome and program from each was selected for assessment. 19. The Pilot also benefited from the experiences of a number of audit offices that have work programs with a performance information focus. In particular, the Office of the Auditor General for Western Australia and the Office of the Auditor General of New Zealand have provided information and support. Overall conclusion 20. Non financial performance information allows entities to assess the impact of policy measures, adjust management approaches as required and provide advice to government on the success, shortcomings and/or future directions of programs. Non financial performance information also assists the Parliament and the public in assessing whether policy goals have been achieved and how effectively the public sector has performed. The capacity to 18

19 Summary undertake this analysis is dependent on the provision of high quality and robust performance information. Australian Government entities currently report against some 650 government programs that are measured by approximately KPIs. However, it is still difficult to get an accurate picture of the performance of programs across the public sector The results of the Pilot, conducted in the light of the amendments to the Auditor General Act 1997, reinforced the issues identified in ANAO Audit Report No and other ANAO performance audits. The assessment of entity performance measurement and reporting identified that entities continue to experience challenges in developing and implementing meaningful KPIs, and that the administrative framework supporting the development and auditing of KPIs remains problematic. This is similar to the experience of some other jurisdictions where a robust system of KPI reporting and auditing has taken some years to develop. 22. The broad range of roles and activities undertaken by Australian Government entities highlights that while some entities programs suit the development of relatively straightforward performance information, the less tangible nature of the objectives of some other programs is more of a challenge. 11 A homogenous framework for application by all Australian Government entities, without recognition of the variety of entity activity/ies, has compounded the challenges that entities have in implementing the Australian Government performance measurement and reporting framework. For example, in a purchaser/provider model one entity will be responsible for the oversight of a policy initiative/s and be better suited to measuring the impact through KPIs, while another entity is responsible for the delivery of services and will be better suited to a focus on measuring deliverables. The development of a framework that accommodates this diversity, providing entities the ability to develop and report appropriate performance information regardless of their role, is critical. 23. It is also apparent that the Outcomes and Programs framework would benefit from consideration of intermediate objectives where an overall outcome can only be achieved over the longer term. In these circumstances it may be necessary to relate targets associated with effectiveness indicators to Department of Finance and Deregulation, Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review, position paper, Sharpening the Focus: A Framework for Improving Commonwealth Performance, November 2012, p. 16. ANAO Audit Report No , Development and Implementation of Key Performance Indicators to Support the Outcomes and Programs Framework, p

20 milestones that demonstrate progress towards the program objective. This has been an issue which has been raised by the ANAO over many years, but where greater emphasis is required to obtain a stronger focus on the impact of programs. 24. Additionally, a more comprehensive model for performance measurement and reporting in the Australian Government would include consideration of the development and implementation of efficiency indicators to complement the effectiveness indicator focus within the current model. 25. The promulgation of updated, comprehensive guidance will be central to supporting the development and implementation of appropriate KPIs by public sector entities. It is also clear from the Pilot that the current framework and accompanying guidance does not provide an effective framework against which entities KPIs can be reliably evaluated through an assurance audit process, as it does not specify clear standards or criteria that KPIs should satisfy. That said, it does need to be recognised that the current framework was not designed with this specific purpose in mind. 26. Performance reporting is most effective in informing the government, the Parliament, and the public when based on clearly expressed outcome statements, program objectives, deliverables and KPIs. The Pilot found there was room for strengthening the Pilot entities performance reporting frameworks which may require a further investment in resources in order to improve the quality of the performance information contained in the entities annual reports. 27. The Pilot also confirmed the need for focused and clear outcome statements and well defined program objectives as important in allowing the development of appropriate KPIs. Entities periodic review of both outcomes and objectives, together with adherence to Finance guidance, will contribute to meeting the need for focus, clarity and well defined outcome statements and program objectives. The entities engaged in the Pilot were receptive to the ANAO s feedback and planned to revisit their current approaches where required. 28. Implementation of a systematic assurance audit of the appropriateness of entities KPIs, and the completeness and accuracy of their reporting is a process that will take time as entities continue to develop and refine their KPIs. The focus of the ANAO in this area through both performance audits and the specific audits of KPIs can be expected to lead to improvements in the quality 20

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.24 2012 13 Performance Audit The Preparation and Delivery of the Natural Disaster Recovery Work Plans for Queensland and Victoria Department of Regional Australia, Local

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.25 2010-11 Performance Audit Administration of the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Australian National

Enhanced Commonwealth Performance Framework Discussion Paper AUGUST 2014 Commonwealth of Australia 2014 With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented

Better Practice Guide Better Practice in Annual Performance Reporting ISBN No. 0 642 80767 1 Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.16 2013 14 Performance Audit Administration of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program Department of the Environment Department of Industry Australian National Audit Office

Commonwealth of Australia 2014 This work is copyright. In addition to any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all material contained within this work is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution

The Auditor-General Audit Business Support Process Audit The Use and Management of HRIS in the Australian Public Service Australian National Audit Office Commonwealth of Australia 2004 ISSN 1036 7632 ISBN

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.31 2007 08 Performance Audit Management of Recruitment in the Australian Public Service Australian National Audit Office Commonwealth of Australia 2008 ISSN 1036 7632

Essential Standards for Registration State and Territory Registering Bodies Australian Capital Territory New South Wales Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia

Australian Government Cloud Computing Policy Maximising the Value of Cloud VERSION 2.0 MAY 2013 AGIMO is part of the Department of Finance and Deregulation Contents Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Australian

The Auditor-General Performance Audit Administration of the Tariff Concession System Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Australian National Audit Office Commonwealth of Australia 2015 ISSN

REVIEW OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS REVIEW OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS June 2003 Commonwealth of Australia 2003 ISBN

Response from the Department of Treasury, Western Australia, to the Productivity Commission s Draft Report Regulatory Impact Analysis: Benchmarking Context Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) began in Western

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.33 2010 11 Performance Audit The Protection and Security of Electronic Information Held by Australian Government Agencies Australian National Audit Office Commonwealth

ISSUE 2 June 2015 Committee Chair, Dr Andrew Southcott MP Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees In April, the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), Dr Andrew Southcott

Fraud Control in Australian Government Entities Better Practice Guide March 2011 This Better Practice Guide was prepared by the Australian National Audit Office and KPMG. ISBN No. 0 642 81180 6 Commonwealth

Government of Western Australia Department of Local Government INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING Framework and Guidelines Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines p1. Contents Foreword

HPF Tool Template for the Performance and Accountability Statement Second round reviews Amended December 2012 The High Performance Framework was developed by the Public Sector Performance Commission. This

Evolving Oversight The Australian Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit By Shane Armstrong, Department of the House of Representatives The Australian Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit,

V I C T O R I A Auditor-General of Victoria CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE AUDITS Payroll management and Administration of the goods and services tax March 2003 Ordered to be printed by Authority. Government Printer

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.54 2004 05 Performance Audit Health Insurance Commission Department of Health and Ageing Centrelink Department of Family and Community Services Australian National Audit

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.12 2002 03 Performance Audit Management of the Innovation Investment Fund Program Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources Industry Research and Development Board

The Auditor-General Audit Report No.42 2011 12 Performance Audit Management of the Multicultural Servicing Strategy for the Delivery of Centrelink Services Department of Human Services Australian National

SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE MEDICAL RESEARCH FUTURE FUND BILL (2015) AND THE MEDICAL RESEARCH FUTURE FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2015 FROM

Please note that the following document was created by the former Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. The former Council ceased its activities on 31 December 2005 and the Australian

december 08 Guidelines for Capital Business Cases OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Policy & Guidelines Paper Preface The NSW Government is committed to the ongoing improvement of public services by ensuring

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE SIXTY FOURTH REPORT TO THE PARLIAMENT Report on the review of the Auditor-General s report on Parliamentary control and management of appropriations SEPTEMBER 2005